From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Bill Schottstaedt" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Serious bug inn GUILE rational handling Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:32:41 -0800 Message-ID: <20061224112539.M19482@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1166959972 29313 80.91.229.10 (24 Dec 2006 11:32:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 24 12:32:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GyRay-0003WG-DD for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:32:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRax-0000UR-V4 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:32:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRau-0000UE-LE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:32:44 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRat-0000Tw-VC for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:32:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRat-0000Tt-SB for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:32:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [171.67.22.28] (helo=smtp1.stanford.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GyRat-00065a-Iq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:32:43 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2195F4C761 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:32:42 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.Stanford.EDU [171.64.197.135]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F194C733 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:32:42 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ccrma.stanford.edu (ccrma.stanford.edu [171.64.197.141]) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id kBOBWfZ20919 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:32:41 -0800 Original-Received: from ccrma.Stanford.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ccrma.stanford.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.5) with ESMTP id kBOBWfrE011552 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:32:41 -0800 Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.41 20040926 X-OriginatingIP: 24.23.251.119 (bil) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6363 Archived-At: > I have removed support for the reduced bit, and put the reduction in > make_fraction. I think it was intended that equal? would use scm_i_fraction_equalp which reduces both arguments before checking equality. So the simplest fix would be to mask off the reduced bit in the cell type in the check for cell type equality in scm_equalp. I would hesitate to remove support for this bit because it will mean you get gcd on every integer divide! The current system already slows Guile down by about 10%. On the race condition, my vage recollection is that the "is this safe?" question was mine, and I hoped at that time that someone who knew about such things would check it out -- I believe (it's been a long time since I looked at this stuff) that if that line is not safe, there are a lot more like it scattered around Guile, so it's scarcely reason to jettison the entire thing. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel